Governator's Mandatory Fuloughs Shot Down by Courts

[laughingliberal]

An Alameda County Superior Court judge Thursday ordered Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to halt thrice-monthly furloughs for tens of thousands of state workers, saying the administration overstepped its authority in approving the unpaid days off.

A spokesman for Schwarzenegger said the governor would appeal the decision of Judge Frank Roesch in favor of three state employee unions, including the Service Employees International Union Local 1000. The unions had filed suit after the governor began the furloughs in February, in response to a multibillion-dollar budget shortfall.

The judge ruled that the governor's use of the state Emergency Services Act to furlough state workers because the state did not have a budget at the time had limits.

"The emergency necessitating them was the failure of the Legislature to pass the budgets, though the reach of the orders extended long after those budgets were subsequently passed and signed into law," the judge wrote. Roesch also ruled that furloughing state employees who are paid from special funds interferes illegally with the operation of specially funded agencies.

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-furlough1-2010jan01,0,2238571.story

Guess I've wondered how Californians feel about the recall that put Arnold in office now. In addition to his tanking the state's $5 billion lawsuit against Enron he doesn't seem to have done well with the budget which, as I recall, was their gripe with Gray Davis.

[Craftsman]

1. I wonder when the lay offs will begin?

[gratuitous]

2. Perhaps never

After all, if a contract is negotiated between two parties (in this case the state and its civil service bargaining unit), they might come up with a workable solution that protects jobs, allows for voluntary furlough days and saves the state money. The court just said that one side can't invent an emergency and make unilateral changes to the contract.

The question is whether the state executive will deign to bargain with the hoi polloi to negotiate a solution.

[Craftsman]

3. Something has to give, the state is flat broke and teh citizens will not approve higher taxes

[ProgressiveProfessor]

4. State contract allow layoffs which are sure to come. Just like in Hawaii

The various state unions will have to decide whether to protect the jobs of all members with furloughs or discard the junior one to protect the more senior

[gratuitous]

5. Of course there can be layoffs

But instead of calling forth some nonsense "emergency" as the state did, it can now happen that the parties sit down together to bargain as they should have done in the first place. Maybe layoffs are the way to go, and there's no avoiding it. Maybe a system of voluntary furloughs can cut state expenses sufficiently to balance the budget. The point I want to emphasize is that the parties themselves should examine the situation together and come to a mutually agreeable solution, rather than having the Executive folks issue a fiat that unilaterally abrogates the contract.

And we're back to the original question: Will the state deign to sit down with the hired help and work out a mutually agreeable solution, or will the Schwarzenegger administration simply announce layoffs in an effort to damage the union (no doubt to the delight of the same nitwits who stymied the state budget talks)?

One way tries to bring as many people as possible on board to create a workable solution. The other way rewards obstructionists for acting like spoiled children, wanting all the service of government without paying for it, at the expense of working men and women who keep the apparatus of the state working for everyone.

Which side is Arnie on?

[ProgressiveProfessor]

6. The referent for this is Hawaii and layoffs forced the union to come to the table

It will be much the same in California. Cuts will be announced and the union will be forced to choose between layoffs, furloughs or a mix of both. They will only be able to influence the impact, not the cuts themselves.

Since there are prior ruling limiting where cuts can be made, the vulnerable areas will be cut deeply.